After surveilling USS Liberty for more than nine hours with almost hourly aircraft overflights and radar tracking, the air and naval forces of Israel attacked our ship in international waters without warning. USS Liberty was identified as a US naval ship by Israeli reconnaissance aircraft nine hours before the attack and continuously tracked by Israeli radar and aircraft thereafter. Sailing in international waters at less than five knots, with no offensive armament, our ship was not a military threat to anyone.

The Israeli forces attacked without warning and without attempting to contact us. Thirty four Americans were killed in the attack and another 174 were wounded. The ship, a $40-million dollar state-of-the-art signals intelligence platform, was later declared unsalvageable and sold for scrap.

Despite a near-universal consensus that the Israeli attack was made with full knowledge that USS Liberty was a US Navy ship, the Johnson administration began an immediate cover-up of this fact. Though administration officers continued individually to characterize the attack as deliberate, the Johnson administration never sought the prosecution of the guilty parties or otherwise attempted to seek justice for the victims. They concealed and altered evidence in their effort to downplay the attack. Though they never formally accepted the Israeli explanation that it was an accident, they never pressed for a full investigation either. They simply allowed those responsible literally to get away with murder.

There are going to be two extremes here:

Those evil Jews did this because they’re evil.

This was an innocent mistake, and a normal friendly fire incident.

Neither is wholly true, and neither is wholly wrong, but the former is not specific to Israel but to international politics itself, and it is possible that part of what went wrong was America’s incompetent scumbag president Lyndon Baines Johnson. (Grammar fans will note that there is no comma after “incompetent scumbag president,” implying that there are multiples of this quantity).

Haaretz offers us a new theory — we can dispense with the term “conspiracy theory,” because many actions in international politics turn out to be conspiracies, and what “conspiracy theory” really means is those who blame an ancient worldwide conspiratorial organization like the Masons, Illuminati, Jews or Satanists — which really clears nothing up despite being somewhat plausible:

The authors’ bottom line is that then-U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson was behind the attack, in an attempt to blame then-Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser – an excuse that would then enable the United States to join the Six-Day War.

The book includes, among other things, a CIA document from November 1967 that is still partially censored. In the document, which is also on the official CIA website, an anonymous source is quoted as saying: “They said that [then-Israeli Defense Minister Moshe] Dayan personally ordered the attack on the ship, and that one of his generals adamantly opposed the action and said, ‘This is pure murder.’” There is no dispute about the authenticity of the document, but clearly not every sentence written in an intelligence document is the unvarnished truth.

On the other hand, the new book quotes a story reported by former U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter, who recounted a conversation between an Israeli pilot and the Israel Air Force war room, which was allegedly picked up by an NSA aircraft and inadvertently cabled to CIA offices around the world:

Israeli pilot to IDF war room: This is an American ship. Do you still want us to attack?

IDF war room to Israeli pilot: Yes, follow orders.

Israeli pilot to IDF war room: But sir, it’s an American ship – I can see the flag!

IDF war room to Israeli pilot: Never mind; hit it.

What is interesting about both of these data points is that they show some Israeli generals and pilots objecting to the attack, which had two parts: jet strafing and rocket attacks, which shot down the American flag from the ship, and a torpedo attacked, which occurred later when the ship was unable to signal because its signal light had been destroyed.

There were a few screwups in sequence that made this grotesque error possible: (1) the removal of the ship from naval maps, because it was recognized as an intelligence ship, (2) the failure of US and Israel to have open communication lines because of threats from the government of Egypt to consider the US a partner, not to mention the fact that the US had no idea where the ship was owing to a complex series of messaging bungles, (3) the failure of IDF command, owing to its division between air force and navy, to correctly identify the ship, (4) the reliance of the IDF commander behind the initial attack on this data, and (5) the destruction of the flag, and the approach by torpedo boats from a side where they could not see the boat registration painted on the hull.

Like most interesting things, you could not summarize that in in a sound bite, or the catchy thesis of a mainstream political book, or even a statement in a long-interview. People need simple stuff. So here is the simple stuff: the IDF attacked this boat out of mostly incompetence, but second, a malevolence toward whatever was shelling the coast of Israel, and possibly quite a bit of arrogance as they had just destroyed four Arab air forces and were enjoying dominance of the skies; the Americans tried to stay out of a conflict that was inevitable, and in doing so, may have incurred some wrath; and the IDF did not know that the U.S.S. Liberty did not have a Hebrew speaker abroad, and therefore could not be leaking Israeli traffic to the other side, and the IDF might also have been enraged at what it perceived was spying on Israel.

We are not going to know what happened because the coverup began as soon as the event was discovered, which happened two hours later when Israel reported the screwup to the US.

So what still rankles about the U.S.S. Liberty attack? In Western European culture, when a screwup is made, the correct thing to do is to blame those responsible and to offer to pay restitution. In Middle Eastern culture, the correct thing to do is to defend your own position. Those are incompatible values.

This is complicated by the fact that Israel had just waged a military gamble, and did not want to report any type of failure in the process, as that war was already controversial, as was newly-appointed Israeli Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan. Even more, there had been a glitch: when Israel destroyed the Arab air forces, Arab navies joined the battle, shelling nearby areas on the shores of Israel.

Part of the upset over this attack has to do with a sneaking suspicion that Americans were involved, which is why this gives rise to the Gulf of Tonkin beta test rumors. Where the Americans were involved is here:

They were cucked, as usual, into not taking sides, which surely pissed Israel off and contributed to the not really giving much of a damn about the U.S.S. Liberty. Johnson, the canny politician and corrupt operator who faked his way through a dozen elections before inheriting the office of the presidency, was unwilling to take the political risk, and so he sacrificed American servicemen by sending them blind into a combat zone full of angry and possibly inept actors.

Much of the legend of the IDF comes from the wars of the 1960s and of course, the abilities of the Mossad, its spy agency. However, every army has its failings, and disorganized command hierarchies are a frequent problem. In addition, it is worth noting that the IDF of the 1960s is not the IDF of today. Back then, it was staffed by those who had fought in the world war and were mostly paranoid, being surrounded by enemies.

As usual, if one looks far enough into a situation, the easy answers evaporate. Israel gained nothing militarily from attacking the U.S.S. Liberty and took a public relations hit for it, which they recognized immediately. Their ineptitude caused problems. This was compounded by the incompetence of the Americans, who did not know the position of their ship nor could get orders to it signaling that it should move to a safer location (read the report for the story of that entertaining and despairing multi-bungle). At that point, a culture clash between European-derived and Asian-derived cultures came about, with people saving face as best they could, and at that point a cynical and corrupt American presidents swept the incident under the rug.

What can we draw from this? For starters, that most people are firmly entrenched in illusion when it comes to foreign relations. Look at this entertaining quote from a person arguing for the “friendly fire” non-theory in the Haaretz article, one of the two extremes of nonsense to which people naturally swing:

“What continues to fuel these conspiracy theories?” Oren asks. “The subject is revived every few years. It is part of a ‘theory’ that Israel, together with Russia and China, spies on the United States. As Israel’s ambassador to the United States I saw this undercurrent, which is also sometimes anti-Semitic.”

He steps straight into nonsense here: not only do Russia and China spy on the United States, but after the Jonathan Pollard case, no one doubts that Israel does as well. Mossad is well-known for sharing information across loyalty lines when it can gain something from this. That is not just sensible from an intelligence perspective, but the norm in international politics.

Only the citizens of the West — brainwashed by democracy and its assurances that good intentions are better than good outcomes — would believe such nonsense. Every nation is spying on every other nation, and the world of international espionage resembles a market more than an ideological battlefield. Even more, nations even attack allies when they push too far.

So, what a complex web we weave… the charges against Israel, far from being “anti-Semitic,” are actually right, up until the point where people think this was more than incompetence plus a rogue commander, probably both the son of someone important and less than competent, hence his assignment to someplace they thought he could not screw up, plus the fast coverup. So they are not quite right. And in turn, the lack of charges against the Americans, for fence-sitting and an inability to correctly manage their assets, are not wrong and should be mentioned more frequently, but in the typical human monkey us-versus-them outlook, they are not.

No one is 100% innocent, as the herd illusion would have us believe. Neither were the Israelis all good, nor were the Nazis all bad, and even the Soviets did a number of good things. The Arab states are not evil, but simply primitive, which explains their continued ultra-failure against tiny Israel. The USA thrived because of Western genes, not Judeo-Christianity; Israel thrives because of the IQ boost that Jews acquired when traveling through Europe during the diaspora. None of these things can be admitted in public.

And there, dear readers, is where I bestow the blame for the U.S.S. Liberty disaster: we live in a time that is ruled by We The People, and We The People demand simple and stupid lies instead of complex truths. In this sense, the real conspiracy is democracy itself. A belief in the goodness of America, anti-Semitism, Communism and blind vilification of Nazism are all poisons from the same root, which is the herd pathology of self-delusion.

Most of our human thinking is defensive, or based on avoiding or subverting those who we perceive will wrong us. That type of thinking does not extend well to politics or the underlying question, which is how to create a civilization that both prospers on its own and encourages good people under it to prosper.

Instead of assuming that other ethnic groups are enemies, let us place them in a middle category: like other people in our own society, other groups are motivated by self-interest. Since for any group to survive, it must assert itself, that includes domination of any other groups within their reach. This is subconscious and not “intended,” but instinctual.

Nature has made no better creature than the dog, but if you put two dog packs in the same valley, soon you will have only one dog pack. The usual pattern is for one to kill off the males in the other, take its females, and then grow larger and more powerful. Of course, the strongest of dog species simply kill all of the other, since they want to remain as they are, and not as a hybrid, which would be defeat as surely as being conquered.

What this means is that other ethnic groups are not bad people, but people in the wrong place. Yes, they have their habits and tendencies which — by our lights — might also be unwanted, but they are not objectively bad. They just are what they are. Thinking like a nihilist, we then recognize that this group and its behaviors are appropriate to its needs in its homeland.

Some groups may be further along in different ways than other groups. We cannot say that any way is definitively better until we see how it turns out, and we want them to be able to develop on their own as is appropriate for them. Or not: they may choose to stay at a lower level of development because it works for them. There are sparrows, hawks, nightingales and hummingbirds.

This lets us see that this is a war against ideas. Sure, groups like Muslims, Africans and Jews may have their highly visible negative effects, but these are issues on top of the basic issue that any foreign group will cause instability, reduce our ability to have social standards, increase distrust and eventually, genetically replace us.

For too long, our dialogue on race has taken the form of a description of victims and victimizers. The white victimizer preys on non-white victims, or we reverse that, and talk about non-white crime and subterfuge harming whites. In reality, ethnic identity is not binary, although it seems that way because each country has a national group and everyone else is Other.

Blogger Dani Ishai Behan took to the Times of Israel with an incisive defense of the uniqueness, historically and ethnically, of Jewish identity. Characterizing Jews as white, Behan argued, erases Jewish experience across every pogrom, torture table, oven and ghetto that has decorated our painful past. The people who persecuted Jews never thought of Jews as either white or European — and Jews never thought of themselves that way, either. Categorizing Ashkenazi Jews as white, Behan argues, deprives Jews of the legitimate protection that all indigenous, oppressed ethnicities deserve, and engages in dangerous historical revisionism.

Instead of continuing the victim narrative, where one tribe must be wrong for defending itself against others or trying to dominate a multicultural society, we should face the truth: for us to remain friends, each ethnic group needs its own place where it can engage in its historical behaviors. Otherwise we make enemies of each other and oppress everyone in our quest to avoid oppression.

While anti-Semitism makes no sense because it scapegoats one group for the failure of the much larger phenomenon of Western Individualism, it is easy to see how it came about in the modern time because of the unfortunate affinity of a large percentage of Jews for egalitarian ideologies which also reveals the eternal tragedy of the Jewish people in Europe and Eurasia:

In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a “carnival of mass murder,” “fantasy of purges”, and “essianism of evil.” Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.

When 2% of the population represents nearly 40% of the Communist Party, they will be targeted. Herzl recognized this when he noticed that among national populations, those who do not fit the national profile are attacked whenever things go wrong. But even more, when a stereotype becomes somewhat true, the brutality that follows seems justified or at least forgivable to most people, despite being unrealistic.

Naturally the tragedy of the Jews comes into play here. The Jewish diaspora began before the Jewish people were exiled from Palestine. It lies in the mixed-race nature of the Jewish population, who were probably once European but became merged with Asiatics and Asiatic-African hybrids because of Israel’s place as the center of world commerce at the time.

The Jews are a bourgeois tragedy: successful in business, they accepted everyone, which led to them changing from a European population to a mixed one. This guaranteed them a home on none of the continents and, when their homeland in the middle east was dispossessed from them, a wandering group who could never point to an origin and say “there, alone, we belong.”

Like the good businesspeople of the West today, the original Jews accepted diversity because it made good business sense. Thriving businesses do not turn down customers because of their national origin. But in doing so, the Jewish people invited in the hybridization that ensured they would never have a racial home or continental home except themselves.

This fundamental alienation led to a fascination with anti-majority movements for many Jews, explaining their higher participation in Leftist movements. However, their lack of an identity in one of the four root races — Australid, Caucasian, Asian and African — then turned against them, as even the Communists recognized the power of nationalism.

While this seems like a problem without solution, nationalism solves this problem. A new race was made: the Jewish people. It belongs to no one but itself, and it needs its own homeland, whether in Israel or Madagascar. It will never be European again, but it can be the best of what it is, and this begins with a divorce from the alienation that has led it into so many disasters.

In the meantime, these historical events prove how nonsensical anti-Semitism is. Our problem in the West is that we are following the path that the ancient Jews did because, as individuals, we are willing to “succeed” at the expense of civilization. We cannot blame others for our own moral failing, and indeed, doing so obscures what we must do, which is to change our ways.

In light of the recent doxxing fiasco in which members of the Alt Lite, neo-Nazi fringe and far-Left came together to destroy the life of an internet broadcaster, it is time that we on the Alt Right had a conversation about anti-Semitism and other forms of scapegoating.

It is in human nature to scapegoat. We play tennis and score badly, so the racquet is to blame, or maybe the net, possibly the fuzz on those tennis balls from the new brand that we are not yet sure we like. Dinner turned out badly? Must be the chicken, or the stove. These scapegoats live with us because they are plausible, but only tell part of the story in some cases, which means the wrong thing is being blamed.

For example, it is perfectly possible that the stove is really bad, and that the chicken is not great. However, those things alone do not make a bad meal. We knew of those challenges before we started. Also, maybe the racquet is not so good, and the new balls have less bounce. But these things alone can be compensated for. Failures come from several factors, A + B + C, and to blame any subset of that group is to scapegoat.

Scapegoating screws us in two vital ways: we fail to solve our problem, and we create other problems by chasing after the wrong culprit, including the ugly fact that we deplete our energy and will to solve the problem in the miasma of disappointment and confusion that occurs after a non-solution excites the crowd. Scapegoats doom us to perpetuate problems and create new ones.

How do you determine when you are using a scapegoat? The simple test is to correct for the factor you think is to blame and then run the equation again. If you suspect that A is wrong in A + B + C, fix A, and then re-run the test. If you would still end up with failure, or at least still be most likely to fail, then A is a scapegoat, or a contributory cause misidentified as the whole cause.

For this reason, our test for anti-Semitism is this: If all Jews died tomorrow, would our problems cease to be?

Waking up in a world without a Jew would mean that many prominent Leftist figures would be gone, true; it would also mean that the Democratic party would lose its major group of donors, and that Palestinians would both have zero restriction on their movement and no one to target for terrorist attacks. But look what remains.

The West would still be in decline, because we did it to ourselves by pursuing wealth and power instead of moral goodness. We would still have diversity, tolerance, equality, pluralism, neurosis and Leftism among us. Our civilizations would still be in the grips of an undeclared caste war, with a lack of purpose, ruled over by the democracy that makes every truth into a simplistic emotional symbolism that veers away from reality.

We would still have overpopulation, pollution and civilization collapse to wrestle with. Did Jews cause those things? They did not cause civilization collapse in Athens, nor in Tenochtitlan, nor in Chichen Itza, and probably not in Cahokia either. Civilizations tend to die when they become successful, lose purpose, and substitute with ideology and control to keep the franchise going. All civilizations die this way.

For this reason, anti-Semitism is not an accurate depiction of our problems. Worse, it fits into the form of an ideology, and is as addictive as drugs, over-eating, promiscuity or any of the other human pathologies we see around us daily. If allowed among us in a serious form, anti-Semitism becomes a replacement for realistic thinking and will lead us astray.

On the other hand, there are benefits to anti-Semitism as a conversational trope. First, it smashes a sacred cow that impedes nationalism, namely The Holocaust. Second, like most ethnic humor, it is funny because there is usually some truth to stereotypes. Finally, it widens that “Overton window” by allowing us to be critical of other ethnic groups and diversity again.

And when done by talented guys like the The Right Stuff fellows, it becomes a form of unity. People groove on the anger and mockery of a group that has been given perhaps a bit much focus in the years following World War II because of the attempted genocide that occurred during that war. You can fight over the numbers, details, dates, methods… whatever. Something happened, to our shame.

But The Holocaust has become a kind of scapegoat for Jews, too. It forces them to identify as victims, which puts them in a passive-aggressive mental state which will screw up any otherwise thriving group. It removes their initiative toward their own goals, and makes them fear “hypocrisy” for conducting necessary ethnic relocation, like that of Palestinians. The Holocaust is worse for Jews now than it was in 1945; then, it represented the loss of many people, but not the soul of a people. Now, it seems to have replaced Jewish identity with a type of self-pity that makes Jews hate themselves.

Jewish self-hatred is a widely-known phenomenon that tends to shock us goyish types when we see it. But Jews, as a group, are highly intelligent and tend to be very realistic. They know their position is dubious, since they are the results of a wealthy commercial society collapsing and, through miscegenation, converting itself into an Asiatic and African hybrid that will never again be fully European, despite having roots in what looks like populations from Italy and France. Jews also observe the behavior of fellow Jews and, much like white people, are frequently pained by it.

Perhaps the best description of Jewish identity comes from Alt Zionist, who writes of a practical Jewish identity that does not hit either of the erroneous extremes of denying mixed European heritage, or assuming that a unique and vital ethnic group has not been forged:

Instead, it is obvious that to be White is simply to be part of a certain group of people who share a common set of ancestors in Europe many thousands of years ago, just as to be Jewish is to be a part of a certain group of people who share a common set of ancestors in Judea many thousands of years ago and to be Black is to be part of a certain group of people of people who share a common set of ancestors in West Africa many thousands of years ago. That, at a certain point in the past, various people who had the right sort of ancestry in Europe were not called ‘White’ does not prove that Whiteness is membership in some sort of sinister social club, but only that people used to use the term ‘White’ in a different way than we do now. Analogously, we now consider many more people to be disabled than we once did, and on that basis give many more people disability benefits, but this does not in any way suggest that being disabled just is a matter of receiving disability benefits. Rather, we simply have found that the meaning of the term ‘disabled’ includes many more people than we previously thought it did.

There is much anthropological and philosophical complexity to the question whether racial terms like ‘white’ refer to biological groups or merely social constructs, and it is not my intention to settle the issue here. Rather, I should like to remark only on the disingenuity and hypocrisy of any Jew who adopts Brodkin’s stance on race. For such a Jew, inasmuch as they consider themselves to be White, attains to the privileged position of being able to, just as Brodkin does, decry Whiteness and slander White identity not as a hostile outsider but as an apparently repentant insider. Because Brodkin considers herself White, she must surely feel no compunction in admitting that her Whiteness is something hateful, bigoted and shameful. In other words, Brodkin’s self-identification as White allows her to make attacks on White people and their identity; whether or not these attacks are warranted by historical systems of power and oppression and present-day instutions of privilege is not germane to the issue: what is relevant is that Brodkin takes herself, as a White person, to be in a position to attack other White people.

But unlike the great majority of those White people in attacking whom Brodkin takes herself to be justifed, Brodkin is not truly attacking herself. For Brodkin has a competing identity behind which she can retreat in the face of her own invective: namely, Brodkin identifies also as a Jew. Brodkin’s own fears about anti-Semitism are evidence that she does not see herself as responsible for any history of power, privilege, and oppression, but rather as a precarious minority in the midst of a potentially hostile majority – a minority sometimes accepted as equals, but always separate and in danger of oppression. As such, Brodkin herself does not bear the personal weight of her attacks against White identity, and whatever justification those attacks might have obtained in virtue of her supposed Whiteness is merely disingenuous illusion.

The writer sees the error in assuming that Jews are “white” because it enables them to criticize whites from behind a protective alternate identity, like dual citizenship, where they can claim to be different from what they criticize. This is a dangerous position, and mirrors Theodor Herzl’s observation that to live among a national group and not be of that group would provoke retaliation, as it has with anti-Jewish pogroms in the past. It is bad to be different because each group needs to feel it is the same, and therefore, can work together as a civilization.

It does not take much of a leap to see that much Jewish self-hatred arises from this dual identity. They are mostly European, mixed with Other no more than your average Southern/Irish or Eastern European, but Jews have an identity of their own, which both makes them not “white” (a troublesome vague definition in itself) and part of a group united by commonality.

This duality confuses Jewish identity, and resentment over The Holocaust being the defining factor of modern Jewish life weaponizes the resulting discontent. For this reason, it is not surprising that many of the most virulent anti-Semites have had Jewish heritage. Witness the troubled past of Frank Collin:

Frank Joseph Collin is most often associated in the public mind as the neo-Nazi who threatened in 1977 to march and rally in Skokie, a predominately Jewish suburb of Chicago.

…The Illinois Corrections Department released Collin after three years, a “minimum time served,” from his 1980 conviction of sexually molesting young boys…For Collin’s role in the Marquette Park rallies in Chicago, the pamphlet distribution in Skokie with its “Death To The Jews” message, the media-manipulation after winning a Supreme Court decision allowing Collin to wear a swastika in any neighborhood of his choosing, Collin was never accused of anything other than being a nuisance, nor has he publicly spoken of those years since. Collin was once quoted as saying, “I used it [the First Amendment] at Skokie. I planned the reaction of the Jews. They are hysterical.”

Frank Collin was born in Chicago, Illinois on November 3, 1944. His father, Max Simon Collin (formerly Cohn or Cohen), a Jew who is said to have spent time in the Dachau concentration camp, may have had a major impact on his life. On Chicago television, one Illinois psychiatrist interviewed Collin during his neo-Nazi period and found him to be consumed with a “hatred for his father,” and thought Collin’s proposed Skokie march was, in effect, “an anti-Collin demonstration.”

Most people do not know that Up to 150,000 Jewish-descended people fought for Hitler and that many were decorated for their contributions. This leads to the obvious question of why someone who is partially or wholly Jewish would fight for a movement that is, to put it mildly, fervently anti-Semitic?

The answer can be found in looking at logical facts through history: Jews prefer the Western Civilization way because it fixes something that they find to be broken in Jewish history. A population ends up being mixed-race only if at some point, it believed in equality, and therefore encouraged admixture between ethnic groups so long as the offspring upheld the politics, culture and ways of the host civilization.

Jews have been bouncing back from that state for thousands of years. Although the diaspora was kicked off by Roman occupation, the attraction of Europe seems more than economic. Jews are in some way trying to rediscover and recapitulate their roots, as if hoping to end the dual mentality created by a mixed-race parentage even hundreds of generations later. In this outlook, strong nationalism is appealing even if it causes conflict with Jewish identity.

For this reason, Jewish people are formalizing their relationship with nationalism despite the dual attack of Holocaust fears and guilt over the Palestinian situation. They know that if left outside of their own communities in an increasingly secularizing world, they will soon cease to exist through outbreeding; if not vigilantly, Hitlerianly nationalistic in Israel, they will be outbred and thus out-voted by Palestinians who seek to destroy them.

The kerfuffle over anti-Semitism is thus temporary for two reasons: first, strong nationalism is about to be normed across the world, which means that resentment of other groups will become normal and through that, find a saner articulation — along the lines of “we want to be with ourselves, with no types of Other among us, no matter how nice they are” — instead of the moribund practice of emotional anti-Semitism. Second, as Jewish nationalism finds a voice, it is going to drive out the suicidal Leftist threads within Judaism and their reliance on multiculturalism.

This leaves us only with another question: what to do about doxxing? The destruction of Millennial Woes’ life by UK media which insisted on revealing his name and the addresses of his family homes showed us that doxxing is a tool of the Left. Only on the Left do people believe that some ideas are so seductive that they must be banned, which is separate from normal taboos that remove “words/images as deeds” activities like child pornography and easy home nuclear bomb kit instructions.

In other words, we need to simply cease destroying people for opinions, period. If we are to purge ourselves of defectives, we should do that on the basis of their behavior, much as we might have done to Frank Collin for his apparent molestation of young children. But we will only be able to get to the bottom of any political issue by allowing it to be aired fully and frequently from all sides.

Our only successful strategy here is to make sure the stigma is removed from all beliefs. Even if we hate anti-Semitism, we must defend anti-Semites, and we must abstain from destroying Leftists no matter what crazy stuff they say, if saying it is all they have done. In this way, we open the political window to its furthest possible extreme, and with it bring the hope of finally articulating the suppressed issues of the last century.

I cherish my Jewish friends, and I have publicly—and again, I think, more than once—expressed gratitude in print for the positive contribution Jews have made to our civilization, way out of proportion to their numbers.

That said, I know the following thing, which anyone who has observed the American political scene surely also knows: A subset of American Jews—a subset, a minority—suffer from a kind of psychological deformation that keeps them trapped in a particular, strangely atavistic type of paranoia, of victim mentality.

In this mentality, it’s always 1881 and we’re still in Russia. The Jews are cowering behind their doors in fear as the Cossacks rampage through the town, or Christian peasants with pitchforks and flaming brands march on the Jewish quarter.

Jews will never have confidence in their host nation unless it is entirely Jewish, at which point they can trust the people around them to have similar interests, including protecting Jewish people, culture, language and religion.

As the Left gears up for a new round of anti-Israel propaganda, Jewish Americans find themselves wondering if they are safe from anyone. Initially they assumed that with the Left, and its embrace of diversity, they were safe, but now they are seeing that equality including racial equality always means taking from high-performing groups and giving to lower-performing groups. Jews are a high-performing group, and thus, are targets.

The solution here as with all diversity questions is to recognize that every group acts in self-interest, and that these self-interests are incompatible between groups. For this reason, as Theodor Herzl noted, Jews need their own ethnic state — and until that day, they will always be unstable and tempted toward “easy answers” like Leftism.

Diversity creates endless clashes. The solution to these is to recognize that there is no universal society, and that each group needs its own space and self-rule. In other words, to save diversity, we must abolish diversity. Instead, we can have diversity where each group has its own nation, and none are thrust into the kind of instability that afflicts the Jewish mind in the West.

Since I am fortunate not to be a puritan or self-righteous person, I can say things as they really are, without any fear of social disapproval, because I have little — or nothing — to lose: I don’t like the Jews.

In my humble opinion derived from both real-world experience and extensive reading of history, they are a bunch of hustlers, charlatans, and parasites. They invent the most intricate theories and postulates in order to avoid picking up a shovel and working like ordinary people.

On the other hand, as a paleoconservative I see morality as an expression of the culture and society that produces it, and not as a universal and shared human value. When people tell me about how evil Zionism is, I shrug because Jews are not my tribe, and therefore Zionism is not my concern. No “I am not an anti-Semite, but an anti-Zionist” for me.

As I do not believe in magic, I won’t speak about of Judaism as if it were a religion of demons (what the hell?) and other nonsense which has been spoken over the centuries. Instead, I confine myself to the earthly things, since I’m not even sure to have a soul or a spirit chained to matter (I don’t think matter is pernicious in any way, but quite the opposite: I enjoy it and I hope a part of it will endure in time, as for instance, my genes, my pets, my books, and also my compact discs).

The Jews, just like any other people who feel that they have a common destiny and a cohesive force that transcends the merely territorial, have the right to have a homeland for their people, for their children, for their grandchildren, for their forthcoming generations and all those beautiful and honorable words we heard when they come from our mouths, but dangerous and virulent when they come out from theirs.

Despite my admiration for the Roman Empire, I think one of the larger challenges for Europe — as both blood and soil attest — was the expulsion of Jews from Judea after the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE, consolidating the Diaspora we all know (Diaspora 1.0).

While other civilizations preferred the military occupation of territory, which required them to collect tribute but gave them the benefit of internal self-determination, Jews chose revolution and for that were exiled from the Roman realm. This was allowed because the Romans considered them useless — for example, the hysterical religious observance, the persecution of charlatans with messianic aspirations — which made it useless to even kidnap and enslave the population, common currency in ancient times. Instead the Jews were exiled as neurotics and petty criminals.

The expulsion of that bunch of troublemakers relieved the temporary tension and satisfied the Roman Empire: the desert territory was taken as spoils of war and a mockery against hordes of local fanatics. The Romans were admirable in their convictions, but also created headaches for European civilization.

We know well how the Roman Empire ended despite its greatness. Wwhen all has been conquered and pacified, and it is not possible to continue with the dynamics of the gang of Romulus and Remus1; imagine a yeast dying in their own alcohol, unable of eating more sugar. The sons of Zion took another path. Although they were not very skilled in buildings nor art (from the Western perspective, of course), they survived because their smallness, with a common element giving cohesion to hundreds of generations: to return to their homeland.

Over the centuries, the visually evident crossbreeding of Jews with Europeans made them more biologically white. They survived as an ethnic group by not forgetting their founding myths and the living memory of the moment in which the Diaspora 1.0 began. Despite the miscegenation, this idea of superiority and difference from the rest was never forgotten, but, even more, was emphasized, much as admixture with whites brought out the fundamentally Jewish character with greater intelligence.

Particularly, the idea of a bunch of Jews (from all races and colors) living together, happy and away from me not only does not bother me, but it pleases me. As a matter of common sense: isn’t better that they are all together at the same place, rather than dispersed around the world, being detrimental to the rest? If someone wants to accuse me of being a Zionist because of these thoughts, that person is probably accidentally correct. But, if so, I’d like to be accused of being a Zionist 1.0.

As a White Nationalist/Identitarian, how could I be against the idea above mentioned? The Jews are neither magical, and definitely they will not sublimate themselves, and as such, they will not disappear suddenly in the air. Indeed, a Holocaust to bring the final solution to the Jewish question (this time, a real one) won’t happen. Then, what is problem when boats, trains, omnibuses, airplanes and carts with Jews from all corners of the world leave their host lands, heading to Eretz Israel? For this reason, I am a Zionist 1.0 and not a Zionist 2.0, since I support the idea of a state for Israelis in Israel, and not in other place in the world. Or maybe somewhere else, but away from me. And away from my people. And away from the allies of my people.

Since the building of a Zionist state in the southern cone is my reality, honestly, I prefer a Jewish state in Palestine instead of a Jewish state in Patagonia disguised as communities with an increasing interest on ecological conservation2.

Being objective, to us, Zionism 2.0 is as dangerous as anti-Zionism: the first one wants an Aliyah of thousands and thousands of Jews going down to the Southern Cone, and the second one seeks the disappearance of the State of Israel, which leads to a Diaspora 2.0. In simple words, both Zionism 2.0 and anti-Zionism converge in the same result. When it comes to us, I’m against the State. When it comes to them (Jews), I am in favor to a State which keep them united, tight and within its current physical borders (sovereignty).

And what about the Palestinians?

Let’s be honest: no occupation is worthy; worthy men cannot live under occupation, but must be free and forge their own destiny, and it is logical that, being witness of the invasion of thousands and thousands of Jews, the Palestinians would react equally violently. Palestine is still in the third world, and while Diaspora 1.0 helped the Jews to acquire the successful methods of the First World3, it is consequently not possible that these two peoples coexist in a territorial overlap anymore. Israelis and Palestinians cannot co-exist side-by-side or comingled.

But Palestinians need a homeland, and that homeland should not be Chile; it should not be South America, nor should it be America. Currently, there is a diaspora of ten millions of Palestinians, and the place of those people should be Palestine, not any other place. From our position, we cannot and we should not advocate for any of the two sides, in fact, it is not our business. Being crude, it becomes our problem when one of them (anyone of the both sides of the coin), leaves its territory to get to ours.

Today, it is not an issue of being anti-Israeli or anti-Palestinian, is about being pro-Us and that leads necessarily to be anti-diaspora, Diaspora 1.0 as well Diaspora 2.0. As I am neither liberal nor self-righteous, I cannot base my argument in human rights, civil rights or the casualties of war. I can speak only common sense and logical reality.

I cannot tear my clothes upon seeing a lot of Israelis watching and cheering as military drops bombs on Gaza. We cannot pretend that they cry for those death toll. Palestinians are their enemies and it is normal to celebrate these bloody deeds. I expect that Palestinians celebrate the death of Israelis similarly and would be shocked if they did not. The world is cruel. Why should it be a wonderful place full of rainbows? We are animals. Aren’t we all?

Palestine needs a home and a State on its homeland. Israel needs a home and a State on its homeland. Probably, as Europeans, we are harvesting today what we sow yesterday, after the Bar Kokhba revolt, but it is time to end our sense of responsibility for the displacement of others and to look towards ourselves.

And with that, we realize that all diasporas must end, and only worldwide Nationalism can do this.

The internet, which is now a social interaction, like all social interactions distills complex ideas down to the viewpoint of the herd: we fear this, we do not fear that.

As a result, on the Right there is often talk about “Zionism” as being a horrible evil which intends to take over the world, forgetting that Zionism is an assertion of Nationalism — the idea that Jews need their own state, and all Jews belong there, where they can control their destiny and live according to their ways.

Its opposite is diaspora thinking, or the idea that Jews should live in every country on earth and try to be dual citizens there. The extreme of diaspora thinking is the idea that Jews must be exterminated because they corrupt these nations, and having them have a nation of their own is impossible.

Back when Ben Shapiro was writing most ardently on this issue, he stated the case for Nationalism as a way for high-IQ populations to defend themselves against assimilation by the much numerically superior third world populations:

Here is the bottom line: If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper. It’s an ugly solution, but it is the only solution. And it is far less ugly than the prospect of bloody conflict ad infinitum. When two populations are constantly enmeshed in conflict, it is insane to suggest that somehow deep-seated ideological change will miraculously occur, allowing the two sides to live together.

Unfortunately, this insanity is generally accepted as “the only way forward.” President Bush accepts it because it is politically palatable. The Arabs accept it because for them, it is a Trojan horse. The Israelis accept it because they are afraid that if they expel the Arabs, they will be called Nazis.

In Israel, Jews have the ability to live as they want according to their cultural mandate. The more people act against Israel, the more the diaspora persists, creating the usual diversity conflict which is that multiple groups living in the same place prevents a value system from being chosen and upheld.

In the West, we live through the same invasion, not just of Muslims but of many other third world groups who reproduce faster than we do, and will replace us with a mixed-race population that has third-world levels of ability, moral character and inclination to social order.

For Israel to survive, it must adopt a policy of exclusion not just of Palestinians but all others. When this happens, the presumptive victims of Nationalism during the Second World War will have validated it as a necessary principle, and the rest of us can begin to adopt it from our countries, which are also under risk of third world assimilation.

You know, the word “Hebrew” (ivri, as in a nationality, like Abraham the Hebrew) comes from the root for “to cross over” — la’avor. I think it’s related to Jews being nomadic people, or maybe Abraham being the first one to cross a river in the Bible? But it does feel like a state that is emblematic of our people, and maybe all people — that we are always in the midst of replacing one fulfilled desire with a new desire, accepting a new piece of knowledge with another question.

When I first encountered Buddhist thought in my 20s, I was so confused. I’m supposed to be content with what’s going on here and now? I realized how much Judaism for me was connected to yearning — to wanting what you don’t have — which is maybe why Israel is so complicated emotionally for Jews: It’s built into the emotional structure of our religion to yearn for a homeland we don’t have.

So then if we have it, what do we yearn for? We say “next year in Jerusalem” as if we are still in exile. But maybe Jerusalem as an idea is never attainable — so we can keep longing for it even when we have it, like a spouse you desire eternally. You keep feeling that you can’t get them, as if it were the perpetual beginning of a flirtation. Jerusalem does have an aura. The air feels thicker there. It feels like the city, itself, is manipulating, pushing passions around.

This sense of yearning is central to all conservative visions of civilization: always seeking for an excellence that rises above reactivity to the world and its material demands, and instead seeks to create an emotional and moral experience in which striving for improvement becomes a joy.

In this vision, self-discipline and civilizational nurturing become one and the same, based in identity as a people. We are ourselves, it says, and we will always have an infinite horizon of potential toward which to aim. There is never an ending, only an ongoing task in which we find pleasure in taking part.

In their zeal to condemn internationalism, of which the Jewish diaspora is the most potent symbol, Nationalists have mostly ignored the Jewish experience of return to a homeland and the loss of their historically temporary identity as the nationless, persecuted and victimized. In this return, we see the soul-nourishing aspects of Nationalism, and how it commands us toward a primitive conservatism, or conservation of excellence.

Almost half of Jewish Israelis believe Arabs should be “expelled or transferred” from Israel, a survey has found.

A study carried out by the Pew Research Centre found that around one in five adults questioned “strongly agreed” with the controversial statement, which amounts to ethnic cleansing under some definitions.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes the act as “attempting to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic group”, while a United Nations report in 1993 additionally specified the use of “force or intimidation”.

The Western liberal press gets it wrong when they gang-rush Israel over this one. As mentionedhereinthepastseveraltimes, Israel has learned the lesson that Germans did when they voted for Hitler: diversity does not work because it cannot work; having two ethnic groups occupy the same space is paradoxical and creates culture clashes, class warfare, racism and genocide.

Initial NSDAP policy was relocation of Jewish people to Israel, which is their ancestral home and historical point of origin. Palestinians, or the Arabs and Jews and nearby populations who were servants to the historical Jews and were left behind during the diaspora, have no claim to the land, being closely related to nearby populations in Syria, Egypt and Jordan.

Israel has realized that it cannot coexist with people who are not only culturally opposed to Jewish people, but genetically opposed. Israeli Jews have an average IQ of 115, approximately, versus 94 on average for Palestinians. This means that one population will always serve the other, either by master through hiring, or as slaves through guilt, political correctness and other forms of social coercion.

The Germans realized that what Theodor Herzl, the founder of Israel, wrote about over a century ago was most correct. The Nazis understood his basic idea which was that Jewish internationalism creates anti-Semitism, much as it does when any ethnic group introduces diversity into a national population:

The Jewish question persists wherever Jews live in appreciable numbers. Wherever it does not exist, it is brought in together with Jewish immigrants. We are naturally drawn into those places where we are not persecuted, and our appearance there gives rise to persecution. This is the case, and will inevitably be so, everywhere, even in highly civilised countries—see, for instance, France—so long as the Jewish question is not solved on the political level. The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America.

After WWII, it was surmised that destroying national populations of Western Europeans with diversity would remove the national consciousness that had caused the Holocaust, and thus would solve the problem. With continued racial antagonism present wherever diversity can be found — Muslims in China, Africans in Mexico, African-Americans in Ferguson, Muslims in Egypt, Palestinians in Israel, Mexicans in America — it has become clear that this viewpoint was wrong. Israel has confirmed this and now has turned against it, especially as it becomes clear that by the same principle as white genocide, Jewish genocide beyond Hitler’s wildest dreams will be accomplished through diversity.

Adolf Hitler has been vindicated by Israel, at least on the level of intent (his methods, which led to the Holocaust, remain suspect). This in turn liberates the West from its guilt at wanting self-interest, or to act for our people alone and to achieve that, to exclude all others on the basis of their mere Otherness. Only our own people belong in our lands, as only Jews belong in Israel.

At this blog, I advance a number of controversial ideas. First and foremost is that Leftism is a form of Crowdism, which is individualism run amok that in groups, creates collectives hell-bent on “equality,” or the idea that all individuals are acceptable regardless of the consequences of their actions. Like Socialism, or “reward before performance,” this is a form of conflict-avoidance that results in lowered quality.

Perhaps more strikingly upsetting to some readers is my stand against anti-Semitism, which I criticize as failing to identify the real villains (Crowdism, diversity, Leftism, equality) and as a result, creating a scapegoat which will exhaust us and strengthen the actual problem. But even fewer like the statement that Zionism is a variation of Nationalism, just as German National Socialism was.

From an unlikely source — the article loses the narrative some time after this, but makes this point with great clarity:

The founder of the modern Zionist movement was a Jewish writer named Theodor Herzl…Fifty one years later, when the “State of Israel” was solemnly proclaimed at a meeting in Tel Aviv, above the speakers’ podium at the conference was, appropriately, a large portrait of Herzl.

In his book Herzl explained that regardless of where they live, or their citizenship, Jews constitute not merely a religious community, but a nationality, a people. He used the German word, Volk. Wherever large numbers of Jews live among non-Jews, he said, conflict is not only likely, it’s inevitable. He wrote: “The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in noticeable numbers. Where it does not exist, it is brought in by arriving Jews … I believe I understand anti-Semitism, which is a very complex phenomenon. I consider this development as a Jew, without hate or fear.”

In his public and private writings, Herzl explained that anti-Semitism is not an aberration, but rather a natural response by non-Jews to alien Jewish behavior and attitudes. Anti-Jewish sentiment, he said, is not due to ignorance or bigotry, as so many have claimed. Instead, he concluded, the ancient and seemingly intractable conflict between Jews and non-Jews is entirely understandable, because Jews are a distinct and separate people, with interests that are different from, and which often conflict with, the interests of the people among whom they live.

Theodor Herzl possessed a wisdom that modern nationalists lack: diversity does not work because each group must self-define so that it can rule itself according to its own standards, and the presence of other groups interrupts that and causes conflict. Racism, genocide and bigotry originate in that tension.

People may wonder why I write in support of Zionists, but it is not from neoconservative reasons, but rather the opposition. The proposition nation cannot work. What works is Nationalism, or each nation being defined by a Volk or ethnic group.

This has many tangible advantages. With a strong culture, less government is needed, and so life can be simpler and less formal. The formalization central to modern life creates high overhead and increases entropy by applying inflexible, universal rules to many particular situations, causing conflict and loss of energy.

One great irony — a lugubrious one — of WWII and the current neo-Nazi movements is that the Jews and Germans ultimately agreed on the correct solution, which was dissolution of the multiracial state and its replacement with ethnostates. Identitarian politics works; democratic equality and its ethnic counterpart, diversity, do not.

The article goes on:

On the basis of their shared views, Germans and Jews worked together for what each community believed was in its own best national interest. The Hitler government vigorously supported Zionism and Jewish emigration to Palestine from 1933 until 1940-41, when the Second World War prevented further extensive collaboration. / 9

(During the war years attitudes hardened, and policy shifted drastically. The German policy of collaboration with Zionists and support for Jewish emigration to Palestine gave way to a harsh “final solution” policy.)

During the 1930s, the central SS newspaper, Das Schwarze Korps, repeatedly proclaimed its support for Zionism. An article published in 1935, for example, told readers: / 10

“The recognition of Jewry as a racial community based on blood and not on religion leads the German government to guarantee without reservation the racial separateness of this community. The government finds itself in complete agreement with the great spiritual movement within Jewry, the so-called Zionism, with its recognition of the solidarity of Jewry around the world, and its rejection of all assimilationist notions. On this basis, Germany undertakes measures that will surely play a significant role in the future in the handling of the Jewish problem around the world.”

Today, Leftists attack Israel for the same reason they attacked Germany: Israel is a successful ethnostate, and this serves as an affront to the Leftist principle of equality. If anyone succeeds outside the mental ghetto of Leftism, the veracity of all of Leftism will be in doubt, and it must be smashed.

In that way, the ongoing terrorist war between Palestinians and Israelis is re-styled as cruel Jewish rednecks beating up on the sainted, innocent Palestinians for no reason other than “racism” and an inner cruelty. Current Leftist propaganda is more extreme than anything Der Sturmer was able to publish during the Third Reich.

As time goes on, we see that the Nationalists — even if their methods were in crucial cases, deplorable — were correct: diversity cannot work. It will exterminate the Jewish people as surely as it exterminates European populations. The mature response is to cast aside the nonsense idea of diversity, and to pursue instead what works.